Invocation at Obama's Inauguration by... Rick Warren? The ****?

[Alt+F4]

Well, Clinton was no better, sadly, signing DOMA into law shortly after being elected having courted the GLBT vote heavily.

Yup. Why should any democrat care about the GLB community? It's not like they were going to vote republican anyway.

Obama just might be the next politician getting the shoe treatment.

 

[Neally]

I don't think Obama ever pretended to be fully on board with the LBGT agenda.

Exactly and further, he clearly stated that he believed in one man one woman marriage. So why is this such a shockeroo?

 

[Darth Rotor]

All you JREF conservatives (and a few of you "moderate libs"), gather around and gloat. I'm furious over this. It's a complete betrayal of the LGBT community.

Barack is going to learn that not all of us like being slapped again and again.

He can't betray the LGBT community if he was never of it. The wooful adoration of Obama due to his not being Bush finally gets exposed for what it was. (Then again, when one's choices are restricted, who does one vote for, or against? Hobsons' choice?)

Bolo, the guy's a politician. A Chicago politician. He's married, has two kids (0.4 below the average) went to law school, made/makes decent money, and goes to church on Sunday.

For anyone in the LGBT community to think "he's one of us" would be self delusion.

ETA: Bolo, he's not even in office yet. Give him a year. He may do some things that you find helpful to your concerns. He's got a lot on his plate.

And there are probably evangelicals who are going to say the Rick Warren is selling them out.

Tee hee, probably right.
DR

 

[Alt+F4]

He can't betray the LGBT community if he was never of it. The wooful adoration of Obama due to his not being Bush finally gets exposed for what it was. (Then again, when one's choices are restricted, who does one vote for, or against? Hobsons' choice?)

Bolo, the guy's a politician. A Chicago politician. He's married, has two kids (0.4 below the average) went to law school, made/makes decent money, and goes to church on Sunday.

For anyone in the LGBT community to think "he's one of us" would be self delusion.

I couldn't agree more, so speaking of self delusion:

The "Out for Equality" ball (though its gay-rights organizers don't want to call it a ball) is shaping up to be one of the single hottest tickets on inauguration night. And you don't have to be L, G, B or T to want in on this action.

The party, being organized by a large coalition of gay-rights groups led by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, promises to feature Cyndi Lauper, Rufus Wainwright, Melissa Etheridge, Thelma Houston and other artists. It will be held at the legendary landmark Mayflower hotel, which, need we even say, is one of the most primo locations in the capital city.

The double blowout extravaganza will commemorate what one leading organizer of the event calls "an important time in history: the inauguration of the most LGBT friendly president in history."

Linky:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/11/_laupers_website_cindilauperne.html

 

[ravdin]

I always knew Obama would disappoint sooner or later. Prepare for ever more pandering to the religious nuts.

 

[Upchurch]

Would someone please introduce Obama to just one member of the clergy who isn't off his head?

I thought that was a job requirement.

Hey, I have several friends and one former girlfriend who went into the clergy and they aren't... um... er... huh.



So, that Rick Warren. He's a jerk, eh?

 

[Jimbo07]

I always knew Obama would disappoint sooner or later. Prepare for ever more pandering to the religious nuts.

He hasn't disappointed me!

A pullback from the excess of the Bush Administration (which is legitimate 'change'), was going to disappoint some in the radical right. OTOH, he was never going to satisfy everyone in the radical left.

So far, I'm optimistic!



ETA: in my edited post, it looks like I'm being more equivocal than I really am. I genuinely believe that we don't have equality for all minority groups, due to some coming from so far behind. However, I think giving the appearance of pinning all one's hopes on a single president does not seem to be realistic.

 

[Cleon]

Rick Warren will be giving the invocation, the opening.

The benediction, the closing, will be done by someone way, way more appropriate--Rev. Joseph E. Lowery.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I always knew Obama would disappoint sooner or later. Prepare for ever more pandering to the religious nuts.

He's
Not
Even
Sworn
In
Yet

Patience, grasshopper, Warren being asked to do the ceremnoy incurs no obligation by Obama to turn Fundie stooge.

I am not impressed at all, even though I didn't vote for Obama in the November election, with the implication that he's both stupid and an easily manipulated puppet of "party X" (other than possibly the Chicago Democratic Machine) based on standard political maneuvers.

Over reacting versus skepticism. I recommend that people in this thread head over to the Language Awards Thread and read the post by NovaLand that I nommed for the December TLA.

Nova Land clearly points out how rushing to conclusions, so often seen on the politics forum, is antiskeptical.

Likewise Sefarst's "the politics forum is where critical thinking goes to die."

We can all raise our game, eh?

Regarding Cleon's link for the Rev Lowrey (thanks Cleon)

Obviously, he's part of the coming theocracy.

DR

 

[ravdin]

Rick Warren will be giving the invocation, the opening.

The benediction, the closing, will be done by someone way, way more appropriate--Rev. Joseph E. Lowery.

Yes, it seems that Lowery has done a lot of brave work in his life to advance the cause of human freedom and dignity. I'd still prefer not to hear his piffle about how Obama has been "touched by the hand of God", but OK, maybe he gets a pass.

As for Warren, I just don't see it. What has he done for anyone? Help pass Prop 8? Write a lot of books? Start a sprawling, tax-exempt megachurch? If it's that important to say a few magic words before the inauguration, surely Obama could have made a better choice?

 

[ravdin]

Patience, grasshopper, Warren being asked to do the ceremnoy incurs no obligation by Obama to turn Fundie stooge.

Duly noted, and I agree that Obama won't suddenly turn into a fundie, or a Muslim, or a latte sipping socialist, etc. on January 20.

 

[Darth Rotor]

As for Warren, I just don't see it. What has he done for anyone? Help pass Prop 8? Write a lot of books? Start a sprawling, tax-exempt megachurch? If it's that important to say a few magic words before the inauguration, surely Obama could have made a better choice?

Politics.

I read his book. *shrugs* It was old by the time I got to the end. Most of it was wasted on me. It is meant for people who, as I see it, have never had the luck of being focused on something as their mission in life. He suggests one way of doing that, and offers a particular purpose.

It isn't for everyone.

or a latte sipping socialist

So long as he keeps smoking, I'm OK with any and all latte which is a vile abomination on the True Drink of Coffee, elixir of the brain

I am almost eight weeks into smoking cessation. I for one don't want the new Pres to get all irritable and such over quitting smoking. (Bush didn't smoke, and see where that got us! )

He has this button, red, that I don't want him pushing, ya see, since I think the Persians love their children too. Smoke 'em if ya got 'em, Mr Obama, you being non stressed is in my interest.

DR

 

[ravdin]

It isn't for everyone.

Nicely put, and it gets to the heart the contrast between the two preachers. What Lowery represents is for everyone.

Smoke 'em if ya got 'em, Mr Obama, you being non stressed is in my interest.

Off topic, but I have been saying exactly the same thing to anyone who has complained about Obama's smoking habit in front of me.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Nicely put, and it gets to the heart the contrast between the two preachers. What Lowery represents is for everyone.

Well, maybe not for MaGZ ...

 

[tomwaits]

Guys, chill out. This is just the invocation. If he were nominating Warren to some kind of position, I'd be a little worried. But I can't believe you don't see this for what it is: nothing.

 

[Demigorgon]

All you JREF conservatives (and a few of you "moderate libs"), gather around and gloat. I'm furious over this. It's a complete betrayal of the LGBT community.

Barack is going to learn that not all of us like being slapped again and again.

Sounds pretty tolerant of you. Pot, meet kettle. What lesson exactly are you going to teach him and how?

 

[Skeptic]

Obama is in the same situation as the judge in the old joke, who got $400 from the plaintiff and $500 from the defendant under the table, so he returns $100 to the defendant and can now try the case on its merits.

Having support from so many special interest groups which want so many contrary things, he is bound to disappoint 90% even if were to do nothing but pander to them, simply as a matter of logic. So he might as well be fair, ignore them all equally, and govern as he sees best, without concerning himself about what NOW or Priests for Obama or the LGBT community or Jews for Jesus want.

 

[applecorped]

All you JREF conservatives (and a few of you "moderate libs"), gather around and gloat. I'm furious over this. It's a complete betrayal of the LGBT community.

Barack is going to learn that not all of us like being slapped again and again.

What's to gloat about?

 

[boloboffin]

Skeptic, thanks for apologizing, but you really gave no cause. I apologize to you. I was feeling off yesterday for unrelated reasons, and this announcement was just a final straw. I came here looking to get hacked off, and I made sure that I could be.

Now I'm psychobabbling. I'll quit while the hole is this deep.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I saw this on the news - very interesting. Apparently, there are a lot of people on both the right and left pissed about this.

The left is obviously pissed because of Warren's anti-gay rhetoric over the years. And, imo, rightly so.

The thing that surprised me is that the right is pissed with this pick as well. It's because Warren is one of the new generation of evangelicals who would rather discuss issues such as "green" Christianity and alleviating poverty as opposed to focusing solely on hot-button issues such as abortion.

I have to say that I cringed a bit when I heard about this pick. That's because I really don't like the anti-gay rhetoric that comes out of the mouths of people like Warren.

However, to be honest about it, most of the country right now does not favor gay marriage, despite the fact that I have no problem with it and believe it should be legalized.

It should also be noted that most of the country also believes the abortion issue has been way overblown over the years and the right is too focused on it.

So, on balance, I see an obvious political calculation on the part of Obama in picking Warren. He said he wanted to govern from the center, and this seems to be an indication of following through on that promise.

It also has the advantage, again calculated, of working to strip away younger evangelicals from the GOP. The Democrats are thinking long term on this, though I wish they didn't feel the need to cater to the ultra-religious.